Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

Tell me how

Rows Grower wrote: »

Two killed and 8 injured in a shooting near Virginia Beach, girl refused to take a fella's phone number, fight broke out, "they were pulling guns out like cell phones."

The law of the instrument, otherwise known as Maslow's hammer is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

The same sort of incident described above happens in thousands of scenarios in every town/city/country around the world every day, but in America, the sheer volume of guns in circulation (whether through legal or illegal origins) leads people to react in this way.

See it a lot in comments sections of videos/articles relating to house break ins, road rage, drunk and disorderly behaviour, or whatever; someone will always post 'Try that with me and my Glock/Sig or whatever and see how far you get' or similar.

silverharp

Tell me how wrote: »

The same sort of incident described above happens in thousands of scenarios in every town/city/country around the world every day, but in America, the sheer volume of guns in circulation (whether through legal or illegal origins) leads people to react in this way.

See it a lot in comments sections of videos/articles relating to house break ins, road rage, drunk and disorderly behaviour, or whatever; someone will always post 'Try that with me and my Glock/Sig or whatever and see how far you get' or similar.

current example

https://twitter.com/LeviMolen/status/1375894858221686784

kildare lad

silverharp wrote: »

current example

https://twitter.com/LeviMolen/status/1375894858221686784

I wonder why CNN calls it an accident???


https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1375881068847509504?s=20

Quantum Erasure

That's what you usually call a car crash

Traumadoc

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

If their gun laws were as strict as their alcohol laws, they wouldn't have a problem.

Nothing will be done with guns in America. Sandy Hook should have been the impetus to change their laws, but wasn't, and the cycle continues.

And if our alcohol laws were as strict as our gun laws , we would not have a problem either.

kildare lad

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

That's what you usually call a car crash

So carjacking and shooting the person with a taser then driving with him hanging off the side of a car resulting in his death , you'd class that as an accident ??

silverharp

kildare lad wrote: »

I wonder why CNN calls it an accident???


https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1375881068847509504?s=20

Accident doesnt work for me, fault with the car?, it might not be full premeditated murder but they need to be charged with something murdery. if bank robbers shot a bank teller, you wouldn't see accident in a headline. A crash involving tasers and a moving vehicle is no accident

wicklowstevo

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

That's what you usually call a car crash

some on died because of the actions of two other people

at the very least it was manslaughter , at worst it was murder ,

and accident suggests that no one was to blame ,

im not sure why any one would or could call that an accident

terryduff12

Rows Grower wrote: »

Two killed and 8 injured in a shooting near Virginia Beach, girl refused to take a fella's phone number, fight broke out, "they were pulling guns out like cell phones."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2021-03-27/police-several-hurt-in-virginia-beach-oceanfront-shooting

Strange this is in the story, while the other person, a Black man, was killed by a police officer. But no mention all suspects that were arrested were black.

AbusesToilets

85603 wrote: »

yeah, no govt can prevent certain things from happening, as govts are only human.

but what govts can do is make it as difficult as possible for such events to happen.

the govt restrict law abiding citizens from getting their hands on anthrax and highly explosive compounds. of course you see the sense in that.

the same logic applies in most western countries to certain firearms with high caliber and fire rate. theres simply no need for some of them to be in unqualified hands.
all they constitute is a threat to public safety, like anthrax or tnt, or uranium, or an m60.

There are millions of semi automatic rifles in private hands in the US. Annually they account for ~300 deaths. More people die from fist related injuries per year.

An "assault weapon" (idiotic name) ban, would accomplish nothing, just like the previous one.

Dyr

terryduff12 wrote: »

Strange this is in the story, while the other person, a Black man, was killed by a police officer. But no mention all suspects that were arrested were black.

It's bigoted to bring race into shootings, unless the shooter is white.

Snickers Man

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Might I suggest you watch a few of the videos on the PoliceActivity YouTube channel it will open your eyes to the dangers faced by cops everyday and why they need to shoot to kill in certain situations when it's a life our death scenario.

Are you trying to make my case or argue against it?

What I'm basically saying is that the laws which give such latitude to Americans to carry loaded guns in public (the essential difference between American gun laws and those of almost any other normal democracy) while defended by many as a safeguard AGAINST tyranny actually result in the tyrannical situation of a country whose police shoot dead about 1,000 people (most of them American citizens) every year.

It is almost axiomatic that a way to benchmark tyranny is to count how easy it is for a government to kill its own citizens within the law. In America, that's fairly easy. Just look at the numbers and compare them to other democracies.

Essentially, I was replying to this earlier post:

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

There is no reason why America could not become a tyranny just as the Roman Republic did. The greatest insurance policy against that happening is the 2A.

......the people have the right to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from using the militia to take away all their other rights.

I was merely asking: "How's that defence against tyranny line working for ya? Your government is shooting 1000 of you every year based on on-the-spot evaluations by gun-carrying law enforcement officials that their lives might be in danger."

The response, from people such as yourself is "But the cops had to do it! They're up against bad people with guns!! Look!!"

Can't you see that what is actually happening is a self-contradicting prophecy?
Instead of the "right to bear arms" giving people "protection" from the forces of the state it actually makes them more of an implied threat to the forces of the state who presume their citizenry is tooled up and willing to take them on.

Nervous cops, wary of the fact that everyone from a traffic light runner to someone who's just had a few drinks too many might be in a position to kill them often shoot first and evaluate the threat more realistically afterwards.

The result is a thousand fatal police shootings every year. The overwhelming majority of them legal. But the situation is not right.

Here's a dreadful example of a cop gunning down a perfectly harmless whimpering drunk, a white man BTW, for the "Crime" of trying to pull up his pants. The cop got away with it.

Is it any wonder so many American citizens are getting fed up with having to listen to valid reasons why their loved ones were killed? Hence the Black Lives Matter movement which is angry, often inarticulate and (in my view) frequently emphasises the wrong points but which is basically a howl of weariness and outrage against the effective tyranny of America's gun laws.

You won't listen to the advocates for reasonable gun control, you WILL listen eventually to the rioters and looters. Not an ideal outcome.

Snickers Man

85603 wrote: »

All guns/no-guns is a stupid argument, and a recipe for disaster.

Of course. Can you name a single normal democracy anywhere in the world that has an absolute ban on its citizens owning any type of firearm?

I don't know of any.

AbusesToilets

Snickers Man wrote: »

Are you trying to make my case or argue against it?

What I'm basically saying is that the laws which give such latitude to Americans to carry loaded guns in public (the essential difference between American gun laws and those of almost any other normal democracy) while defended by many as a safeguard AGAINST tyranny actually result in the tyrannical situation of a country whose police shoot dead about 1,000 people (most of them American citizens) every year.

It is almost axiomatic that a way to benchmark tyranny is to count how easy it is for a government to kill its own citizens within the law. In America, that's fairly easy. Just look at the numbers and compare them to other democracies.

Essentially, I was replying to this earlier post:




I was merely asking: "How's that defence against tyranny line working for ya? Your government is shooting 1000 of you every year based on on-the-spot evaluations by gun-carrying law enforcement officials that their lives might be in danger."

The response, from people such as yourself is "But the cops had to do it! They're up against bad people with guns!! Look!!"

Can't you see that what is actually happening is a self-contradicting prophecy?
Instead of the "right to bear arms" giving people "protection" from the forces of the state it actually makes them more of an implied threat to the forces of the state who presume their citizenry is tooled up and willing to take them on.

Nervous cops, wary of the fact that everyone from a traffic light runner to someone who's just had a few drinks too many might be in a position to kill them often shoot first and evaluate the threat more realistically afterwards.

The result is a thousand fatal police shootings every year. The overwhelming majority of them legal. But the situation is not right.

Here's a dreadful example of a cop gunning down a perfectly harmless whimpering drunk, a white man BTW, for the "Crime" of trying to pull up his pants. The cop got away with it.

Is it any wonder so many American citizens are getting fed up with having to listen to valid reasons why their loved ones were killed? Hence the Black Lives Matter movement which is angry, often inarticulate and (in my view) frequently emphasises the wrong points but which is basically a howl of weariness and outrage against the effective tyranny of America's gun laws.

You won't listen to the advocates for reasonable gun control, you WILL listen eventually to the rioters and looters. Not an ideal outcome.

With respect to police shootings, there are ~13 million police interactions per year. Those 1000 or so shootings amount to 0.0076923076923077% out of the total. The overwhelming majority are completely justified, as has been shown repeatedly.

Been posted previously, but worth it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmgxtcbc4iU

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's a dreadful example of a cop gunning down a perfectly harmless whimpering drunk, a white man BTW, for the "Crime" of trying to pull up his pants. The cop got away with it.

While I've mostly been on the side of the cops, that wasn't even remotely close to being a justified shooting in my book.

Snickers Man

AbusesToilets wrote: »

With respect to police shootings, there are ~13 million police interactions per year. Those 1000 or so shootings amount to 0.0076923076923077% out of the total. The overwhelming majority are completely justified, as has been shown repeatedly.

Like I said previously: the cognitive dissonance between America and the rest of the democratic world is probably unbridgeable.

Here are some brief comparisons of fatal police shootings (averaged out over a number of years) for several countries. In the case of Ireland, I can't get hold of any definitive figures for police shootings but I know there was one last year, none the year before and one the year before that, so I'm averaging it out as one every 2 years. As an estimate. the comparison between the USA and other countries is quite stark!


Country Annual fatal shootings by police Population (million) Deaths/10m
USA 1000 330 30.30
Netherlands 3 17 1.76
France 11 65 1.69
Germany 12 84 1.43
Ireland 0.5 5 1.00
UK 2 68 0.29



What is it about American culture that makes it so "legal" for their police to kill so many people?

Whatever the answer, the idea that a universal right to bear arms reduces the state's ability to kill you is demonstrable bunkum.

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

What is it about American culture that makes it so "legal" for their police to kill so many people?

America is a very violent socient. Much more so than the Dutch, Germans or Irish.

Probably the fact that the vast majority of those 1000 people were acting the boll1x and needed to be stopped.

Obey the law and you will have very little interaction with the police. Be polite when you do have interaction with them and you are fairly certain not to be one of those 1000 people.

I wouldn't fancy being a cop over there. Very dangerous job for not a great wage.

AbusesToilets

Snickers Man wrote: »

Like I said previously: the cognitive dissonance between America and the rest of the democratic world is probably unbridgeable.

Here are some brief comparisons of fatal police shootings (averaged out over a number of years) for several countries. In the case of Ireland, I can't get hold of any definitive figures for police shootings but I know there was one last year, none the year before and one the year before that, so I'm averaging it out as one every 2 years. As an estimate. the comparison between the USA and other countries is quite stark!


Country Annual fatal shootings by police Population (million) Deaths/100000
USA 1000 330 30.30
Netherlands 3 17 1.76
France 11 65 1.69
Germany 12 84 1.43
Ireland 0.5 5 1.00
UK 2 68 0.29



What is it about American culture that makes it so "legal" for their police to kill so many people?

Whatever the answer, the idea that a universal right to bear arms reduces the state's ability to kill you is demonstrable bunkum.

You seem to be gleefully skipping past the part where the suspect's actions are typically the determining factor in the outcome. You are also defaulting to a position that these shootings aren't warranted.

If anything, given the number of guns in society, the incidents of fatal shootings is startling low.

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

America is a very violent socient. Much more so than the Dutch, Germans or Irish.

Probably the fact that the vast majority of those 1000 people were acting the boll1x and needed to be stopped.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You seem to be gleefully skipping past the part where the suspect's actions are typically the determining factor in the outcome. You are also defaulting to a position that these shootings aren't warranted.

Ever read Catch 22?
The cops have a lot of latitude to kill you legally because it's such a violent society.
And part of the reason it's such a violent society is that the cops have a lot of latitude to kill you legally.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If anything, given the number of guns in society, the incidents of fatal shootings is startling low.

There's that cognitive dissonance again. "Startling (sic) low"????? Really?


Don't listen to me though.

Other people will get the message through, if a little more forcibly.
Eventually.

Manic Moran

What I'm basically saying is that the laws which give such latitude to Americans to carry loaded guns in public (the essential difference between American gun laws and those of almost any other normal democracy) while defended by many as a safeguard AGAINST tyranny actually result in the tyrannical situation of a country whose police shoot dead about 1,000 people (most of them American citizens) every year.

The laws do provide such latitude... yet of those 1,000 people shot by police, how many were lawfully carrying their loaded guns in public? If the answer is "very few" (Which I suspect to be the case), then the laws about carrying firearms aren't really the problem, are they?

It's not as if I haven't had police encounters when armed. As Chris Rock observed, step one in avoiding a negative encounter with police is "obey the law". Yeah, in my most recent encounter I was legitimately pulled over for my lack of front license plate (so I failed Chris's step 1), but my gun was legally carried and after notifying the cop I was armed he didn't even ask where it was and just proceeded with issuing the ticket.

Sand

BattleCorp wrote: »

While I've mostly been on the side of the cops, that wasn't even remotely close to being a justified shooting in my book.

Shows the common lie that US cops go easy on white suspects. If anything, I understand the stats show white people in an aggressive confrontation/incident with a cop are shot more often than black people are in similar incidents. The whole BLM narrative is based on a lie.

Rows Grower wrote: »

Two killed and 8 injured in a shooting near Virginia Beach, girl refused to take a fella's phone number, fight broke out, "they were pulling guns out like cell phones."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2021-03-27/police-several-hurt-in-virginia-beach-oceanfront-shooting

Mass shootings like this one are entirely excluded from the stats when people try to demonize white people as carrying out the most mass shootings. The reality is white people are hugely underrepresented as mass shooters, as they tend to be for most criminal/violent acts in the US.

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

Ever read Catch 22?
The cops have a lot of latitude to kill you legally because it's such a violent society.
And part of the reason it's such a violent society is that the cops have a lot of latitude to kill you legally.

You think America is a violent society because of the cops? Really?

I was of the belief it was a violent society long before there were cops.

Rows Grower

Manic Moran wrote: »

The laws do provide such latitude... yet of those 1,000 people shot by police, how many were lawfully carrying their loaded guns in public? If the answer is "very few" (Which I suspect to be the case), then the laws about carrying firearms aren't really the problem, are they?

It's not as if I haven't had police encounters when armed. As Chris Rock observed, step one in avoiding a negative encounter with police is "obey the law". Yeah, in my most recent encounter I was legitimately pulled over for my lack of front license plate (so I failed Chris's step 1), but my gun was legally carried and after notifying the cop I was armed he didn't even ask where it was and just proceeded with issuing the ticket.

I'd hazard a guess that in the vast majority of cases where the 1,000 people were shot, the police felt that their lives were in a lot more danger compared to your situation.

It's almost like a catch 22 situation for a cop to have to deal with someone resisting arrest as things stand. There are just too many guns in circulation.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

The laws do provide such latitude... yet of those 1,000 people shot by police, how many were lawfully carrying their loaded guns in public? If the answer is "very few" (Which I suspect to be the case), then the laws about carrying firearms aren't really the problem, are they?

The laws about carrying firearms are why there are so many guns in circulation in the US.
The fact that there are so many guns in circulation, coupled with the culture of talking about the right to use them is why there are so many gun deaths.
As long as the laws are there, the gun industry is going to keep churning out guns to the market that wants them. When someone then talks about changing the laws, the first reaction of many is to run to buy more guns before that happens. It's a circular mess.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not as if I haven't had police encounters when armed. As Chris Rock observed, step one in avoiding a negative encounter with police is "obey the law". Yeah, in my most recent encounter I was legitimately pulled over for my lack of front license plate (so I failed Chris's step 1), but my gun was legally carried and after notifying the cop I was armed he didn't even ask where it was and just proceeded with issuing the ticket.

I've been wondering about this in the context of the 2A justification of weapons being needed to maintain freedom.
So how will that work when the police are being used by a tyrannical government to shut down public sentiment building? Think that will never happen? We saw it last summer with Trump begging police forces to be more forceful on BLM protests the vast majority of which were peaceful.
How will people know when they can justifiably push back (under their 2A amendment rights) and when they are just going to have people shrug their shoulders and say 'He should have obeyed' as they read his obituary'?

joe40

Snickers Man wrote: »

Like I said previously: the cognitive dissonance between America and the rest of the democratic world is probably unbridgeable.

Here are some brief comparisons of fatal police shootings (averaged out over a number of years) for several countries. In the case of Ireland, I can't get hold of any definitive figures for police shootings but I know there was one last year, none the year before and one the year before that, so I'm averaging it out as one every 2 years. As an estimate. the comparison between the USA and other countries is quite stark!


Country Annual fatal shootings by police Population (million) Deaths/100000
USA 1000 330 30.30
Netherlands 3 17 1.76
France 11 65 1.69
Germany 12 84 1.43
Ireland 0.5 5 1.00
UK 2 68 0.29



What is it about American culture that makes it so "legal" for their police to kill so many people?

Whatever the answer, the idea that a universal right to bear arms reduces the state's ability to kill you is demonstrable bunkum.

This is a genuine question but do Americans in general benchmark themselves against the rest of the world, or at least other like minded western democracies.
It is a great country in many ways but for me there are two areas where they are seriously out of step with other western countries.

One is use of the death penalty and the other their love affair with guns and gun culture.

Do they ever take a step back and say look at all these functioning societies, which are similar in so many ways, but they're doing better on many social metrics, let's learn from them.

Does that conversation ever take place in American politics.

BattleCorp

joe40 wrote: »

This is a genuine question but do Americans in general benchmark themselves against the rest of the world, or at least other like minded western democracies.
It is a great country in many ways but for me there are two areas where they are seriously out of step with other western countries.

One is use of the death penalty and the other their love affair with guns and gun culture.

Do they ever take a step back and say look at all these functioning societies, which are similar in so many ways, but they're doing better on many social metrics, let's learn from them.

Does that conversation ever take place in American politics.

America considers themselves to be number 1 in the world. They won't pay any attention to what others are doing.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

The laws about carrying firearms are why there are so many guns in circulation in the US.
The fact that there are so many guns in circulation, coupled with the culture of talking about the right to use them is why there are so many gun deaths.
As long as the laws are there, the gun industry is going to keep churning out guns to the market that wants them. When someone then talks about changing the laws, the first reaction of many is to run to buy more guns before that happens. It's a circular mess.



I've been wondering about this in the context of the 2A justification of weapons being needed to maintain freedom.
So how will that work when the police are being used by a tyrannical government to shut down public sentiment building? Think that will never happen? We saw it last summer with Trump begging police forces to be more forceful on BLM protests the vast majority of which were peaceful.
How will people know when they can justifiably push back (under their 2A amendment rights) and when they are just going to have people shrug their shoulders and say 'He should have obeyed' as they read his obituary'?

The numbers pertaining to firearms related deaths don't support your argument at all. Roughly speaking, 2/3rds of deaths are suicides, with homicides and accidents accounting for the rest. The majority of the homicides are carried out by black men, using illegally held guns, a further tiny percentage of the population.

Tell me how banning semi auto rifles solves these issues please.

Tell me how

joe40 wrote: »

This is a genuine question but do Americans in general benchmark themselves against the rest of the world, or at least other like minded western democracies.
It is a great country in many ways but for me there are two areas where they are seriously out of step with other western countries.

One is use of the death penalty and the other their love affair with guns and gun culture.

Do they ever take a step back and say look at all these functioning societies, which are similar in so many ways, but they're doing better on many social metrics, let's learn from them.

Does that conversation ever take place in American politics.

Two areas?
Consider access to affordable healthcare, cost of education, employment benefits, job security, incarceration rates and you'll get an answer to your question in the second part in bold.

kildare lad

Tell me how wrote: »

Two areas?
Consider access to affordable healthcare, cost of education, employment benefits, job security, incarceration rates and you'll get an answer to your question in the second part in bold.

Obama had 8 years in office, what did he do about it....

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The numbers pertaining to firearms related deaths don't support your argument at all. Roughly speaking, 2/3rds of deaths are suicides, with homicides and accidents accounting for the rest. The majority of the homicides are carried out by black men, using illegally held guns, a further tiny percentage of the population.

Tell me how banning semi auto rifles solves these issues please.

You are trying to deflect and corral the discussion in to specific points which you seem to think means nothing should be done.

80% of guns used in Chicago violence, an area often referred to here as indicative of the real gun problem in America, are bought legally. I think that in itself supports my argument.

Let's see laws to deal with those issues, and in the mean time bring in laws that assault rifles don't ultimately end up being used in mass shootings in schools, shopping centres, etc.

Or is this a case where you think only a single law can be discussed/considered/implemented and must solve all problems?